Evidence for God from Science

Sargon wrote:Fortigurn,

I appreciate your having organized your thoughts well in this latest post. As you probably noticed I often try to lay things out in steps and number them, it helps me to define the discussion. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend you on your perseverance, though I wholly disagree with your conclusions.

You're welcome. I appreciate the respectful dialogue.

Let's start with your objections to my negative evidence.

Firstly, the curtain or sheet:

The presence of the sheet is only mentioned during the translation of the portion that was lost and not included in the BoM, therefore anything that Joseph could have been hiding behind it didn't make it into the BoM.

If this was the case, then none of the material which was in the 116 pages would have found its way into the Book of Mormon. But it did.

Secondly, the seerstone:

Apparently Martin had a glimpse of what was in the hat. He actually reached in a took out the seerstone and replaced it when Joseph was not looking. There are a few other accounts from those who served as scribes describing the way in which the stone would glow. It is possible that Joseph simply told them that but not probable.

There is another story in which Oliver Cowdery wanted to try and translate. Joseph unhesitatingly handed over the instruments to Oliver. Oliver looked into the hat and was not able to translate, because he didn't know how. The point is that it is extremely improbable that Joseph could have quickly removed anything he was hiding in the hat without Oliver seeing. Oliver was sitting right in front of him.

This doesn't actually address the fact I raised, that the scribes didn't see whatever was in the hat when Smith was speaking. More importantly, they didn't see anything on the stone at all, even when they looked. They were, therefore, not eye witnesses to a process of translation. They were eye witnesses to a man looking into a hat and speaking to them.

Joseph's brother described him translating at one point by a totally different method, using no hat, curtain, or seerstone. He simply looked at the plates through the spectacles. No way to hide a bible or anything else.

This is what is actually required by the process of translation, viewing (or hearing), a text in one language and conveying the meaning into another language. But from what we see of the eye witness accounts, this was not the common method involved in writing the Book of Mormon. On the contrary, it appears to have been the least commonly witnessed method (of course the witnesses do not agree on their descriptions of the writing process, so there are other problems with them anyway).

Not only that, but we have the problem of verification. Without evidence that the text on the plates was accurately translated by Smith, all we have is an eye witness to Smith looking at plates with spectacles and speaking. This is the problem with the eye witness accounts, actually verifying that they were witnessing a genuine translation process.

The fact that the majority of them claim to have witnessed what cannot at all be described as a translation process is the first problem, but the fact that the eye witnesses also describe the process as something other than translation is another.

Indeed, as Mormon apologists acknowledge, 'In this sense, the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph's translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another' (source). Other Mormon apologists would disagree, and there remains an unfortunate disagreement on exactly what Smith did. Was it revelation? Some Mormons say yes, some no. Was it translation? Some Mormons say yes, some say no. If these were common lay Mormons, it wouldn't be surprising, but these are highly educated, sophisticated, well read, and prominent Mormon apologists who cannot even agree on a fundamental issue in the entire subject of the Book of Mormon.

Thirdly, you answer my point that there is no necessity for the Bible to have been physically present in order for Smith to use it as the source of material in the Book of Mormon with this:

I see no reason to consider this negative evidence. How else would he have the information? Would he have memorized it the night before from reading the bible? Would he have copied it down and hid it in the hat? Emma said that there was no way he could have hid any manuscript from her.

Firstly, he would have had the information the same way many other people in his day did - by reading and hearing about the Bible.

Secondly, he wouldn't have had to memorize exactly what he wanted to say the night before, from reading the Bible. He would only have had to read a few chapters and simply invented the rest. He wasn't trying to copy out the Bible, after all, though chunks of standard KJV certainly appear in the Book of Mormon.

Thirdly, Emma was not present during every single 'translation' session, so her evidence is irrelevant here.

Just as you claim that no bible was needed to be present in order to gleam information from it, no plates were required at all times for Joseph to know their contents. Joseph used the plates during the first stages of translation, until he became familiar with the language, then later out of convenience he used the seerstone, which showed him the characters on the plates which he would then work out a translation for.

The problems with this argument are:

* If the plates were not present, then Smith was not translating, he was receiving revelation (see your own Mormon apologists for acknowledgment on this point)

* There is no evidence at all that Smith became familiar with the language (on the contrary, Mormon apologists insist that he couldn't read it, and Smith says rather that he became familiar with the process of revelation)

* Your description of the seerstone does not match the eye witness accounts which say that when Smith used the seerstone the characters appeared with the English meaning also being revealed (Whitmer, Harris, Morse), or else simply the English (Knight)

According to Orson Pratt, an early Apostle of the Church, Joseph said that he had used the Urim and Thummim to translate when he was inexperienced at translation, but with time it was no longer necessary (Millennial Star, Aug. 11, 1874, pp. 498-499).

This contradicts other accounts:

* Smith stopped using the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' after Harris lost the first 116 pages (Whitmer)

* Accounts of the the beginning of the second process of writing (after the 116 pages were lost), when Smith was certainly still 'inexperienced at translation', say that he only used the seerstone, not the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' (Whitmer, Harris, Morse, Knight)

* Cowdrey's claim that the entire Book of Mormon ('save a few pages'), was 'translated' using the 'Urim' and 'Thummim'

Thus the negative evidence I provided certainly exists, particularly the fact that there are no eye witnesses to a verifiable process of translation, and the majority of eye witnesses claim to have seen a process of revelation instead.

Now to the positive evidence.

Firstly the 200 names or so found in the Bible (specifically in the translation common to Smith's time, and available in his area, which included the Apocrypha), which are also found in the Book of Mormon many identical, some only slightly altered:

This is arguably true. But in order for this to be possible you would have to overcome all the evidence that no Bible or manuscript was present in the translation.

No I don't, for the reasons I've already given (there is no necessity for the Bible or anything else to have been actually present while the writing process was taking place). Not only that, but you cannot escape the correspondence of the material in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Also, a better conclusion exists that actually fits within the accounts- that the BoM was written by ancient Israelites who had copies of the Old testament and who spoke a form of Hebrew. Though this story sounds amazing, it fits much better within the available data.

Unfortunately it does not fit 'much better within the available data', because the text of the Book of Mormon exhibits all the features of English (including the distinctive Elizabethan English of the KJV, and the 19th century American English of Smith), and none of the features of English which has been translated from 'a form of Hebrew' spoken by 'ancient Israelites who had the Old Testament'.

The very fact that the Book of Mormon contains the same translation errors as the KJV is powerful evidence for my case. These 'ancient Israelites' certainly weren't reading a faulty KJV and translating it into 'a form of Hebrew' to be later backtranslated into English.

Secondly, a large amount of material which is found specifically in the KJV Bible also found in the Book of Mormon, in the very language of the KJV Bible:

There are easy explanations for this. But do you really want to get off topic?

This isn't offtopic, since it's part of my positive evidence that the material in the Book of Mormon wasn't translated from the plates (it is encumbent on me to supply alternative souces, and this is one of the sources).

If there are 'easy explanations for this', then you can provide them in another thread.

It makes perfect sense that Joseph would have used the language he was familiar with, phrases he had grown up hearing. KJV english was not strange to the ears of Joseph's day as it is now. Thats the short answer.

There are several problems with this:

* The language Smith was most 'familiar with', the phrases he had 'grown up hearing', were in 19th century American English, not 300+ year old Elizabethan English (surely you cannot claim that the majority of the English he heard while growing up was KJV English?)

* You are in fact telling me that Smith had absorbed so much KJV English (including large sections of material from the KJV Bible), that he unconsciously repeated it while 'translating' the Book of Mormon - this proves that he certainly didn't need a Bible with him in order to produce this material, he could take it out of his own head

* You do not account specifically for the actual identical material found in the KJV which sometimes constitutes not merely the KJV English but entire passages

Regarding KJV translation errors included in the Book of Mormon, you wrote:

To date, you have not brought this up.

I hate to say it Sargon, but I have actually presented this evidence to you at least once (and I think twice), before. I did it in the form of a link, so you may not have realised that's what it was, but you would have if you had clicked on the link. This proves to me that you don't actually read everything I link to. I can understand you might be short on time, or feel pressure to present a response quickly, but I can wait. I would much rather you take your time and read the material to which I link than that you overlook it.

Again, a very big topic that would get us way off track.

This isn't offtopic, since it's part of my positive evidence that the material in the Book of Mormon wasn't translated from the plates (it is encumbent on me to supply alternative souces, and this is one of the sources). We can make another thread.

As for the positive evidence which you have, I admit that one might consider it evidence if they were really trying to disprove the Book of Mormon. There are alternate explanations which fit better with the available data, but that is something you will surely disagree with.

The problem is that I have both negative and positive evidence for my case, whereas your case is lacking essential positive evidence, namely:

* That the plates existed
* That the plates contained the material from which the Book of Mormon was written
* That a translation process took place
* That Smith was responsible for that translation process
* That the process was one of translation, rather than revelation

Well we have already been through this. It is a fact that accounts exist describing objects other than the seerstone used for translation.

But how much of the translation? The majority of the accounts say that only the seerstone was used, and Smith himself said that the 'Urim' and 'Thummim' were not used after a certain point.

Also, we have already discussed that your narrow definition of translation is not appropriate for this case.

But my definition of translation was identical to yours, and is identical to that used by the Mormon apologists I have already cited.

I believe that Joseph had to work both spiritually and mentally in order to translate. God helped him understand the meanings of the characters, but he had to figure out a way to put the ideas into english in a manner that God approved of.

With respect Sargon, this is only your opinion. You have no basis for making such a judgment. You have no information other than what is in the witness accounts. You must follow what they actually say, as I do, and you cannot interploate your own view of what Smith may have done instead. You certainly woudn't appreciate me doing that.

How many accounts can you find which describe the plates being used, that is Smith actually viewing the plates? How many times is 'often'?

Ok if you want to quarrel over the word "often" I will give you this one. It is probable that Joseph did not need to physically view the plates for a greater portion of the time. But it is indisputable that he did use the plates during certain periods of time.

Thank you for your integrity. Now the problems here are:

* Cowdrey claims that the entire Book of Mormon ('save a few pages'), was 'translated' by Smith, with Cowdrey as scribe, using the 'Urim' and 'Thummim'

* All of the other accounts (that I have read), say that Smith was not physically viewing the plates while they were being 'translated'

* All the other accounts say that different scribes were used in the writing process, sometimes writing for 'hour upon hour', indicating that the entire Book of Mormon ('save a few pages'), certainly could not have been dictated to Cowdrey

Emma and the plates:

Yes. She felt something that felt exactly as metal plates should.

But she did not actually see them with her own eyes. Nor in fact did the 'Three Witnesses' see them with their own eyes.

Sargon,

I think you need to take a closer look at the similarities between the book of Mormon and the Spalding manuscript... They are just to close to be a coincidental..

I'm sorry... It's just too close...

* The discoverers of both books claim to have discovered the records by using a lever to remove a rock under which the records were deposited on a top of a mound..

The Exact Location

Spalding Account

"on the top of a small mound"
MS:001

Mormon Account

"on the west side of this hill not far from the top"
T&S III:771

Discovery of the Stone

Spalding Account

"I happened to tred on a flat stone . . exactly horizontal"
MS:001

Mormon Account

"under a stone of considerable size"
T&S III:771

Lifting of the Stone

Spalding Account

"With the assistance of a lever I raised the stone"
MS:001

Mormon Account

"I obtained a lever which I got fixed under . . . the stone and raised it up"
T&S III:771

Both have seer stone accounts

Spalding Account

Hamack then arose & in his hand he held a stone which he pronounced transparent. Through this he could view things present & things to come, could behold the dark intrigues & cabals of foreign courts, & behold discover hidden treasures. .. Such was the clearness of his sight, when this transparent stone was placed before his eyes. He looked fiercely & steadfastly on the stone & raised his prophetic voice...

Mormon Account

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his eyes to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.

We see a definite and reveling progression: First young Smith uses the 'seer stone' to 'divine' the location of buried treasure, and then to 'translate' unknown languages.... These occult practices are specifically forbidden in the Bible. (Decker and Hunt, 106-7.)

It possessed the qualities of a Urim and Thummim, since by means of it, as well as by means of the Interpreters found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters - engraven on the [golden] plates." History of the Church, Volume 1, Page 128

Source: http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/rlds1885.htm

Other similarities..

* Both books depict the goings-on of ancient settlers to the New World.

* While making their initial oceanic crossing, the settlers in both books are blown by a fierce storm which makes them fear capsizement.

* The civilized segments of the societies in both books are given strict charges to avoid intermarriage with the less civilized segments

* Both books mention horses.

* Both books discuss the division of the people into two major civilizations

* Forts in both books are identical in their manner of construction.

* The narrators of both books suddenly and inexplicably go out of their way to explain that the earth revolves around the sun.

* Both books describe a messiah-like figure who appears suddenly, teaches the people, and ushers in an era of great peace.

* Both books describe the settlers as having all goods in common at one point.

* Both books, respectively, show the two major civilizations entering into a war of mutual destruction.

* Both books at one point describe the populace as making use of elephants

Source: http://www.geocities.com/lds_research/s ... lding.html

Plenty more here.

Sargon wrote:No I do not wonder.

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Seriously how does that Scripture help you. One of the most quoted scriptures by Mormons is that particular one. Yet it can be used both ways. How does one Explain Joseph Smith using what he did to be not a Divination, witchcraft, or the use of a Medium to interpret the things of God?...

Since Gman and Fortigurn are discussing I will go back to a viewing level

The spring semester is in full gear, and unfortunately my posts will be fewer and shorter. I hope to be able to continue the discussion, but please know that it cannot be as fast paced any longer. I have a tough schedule, and grades are very important. I'm sure you know.

Today I will not be able to do much commenting, but I will just say a couple of things this morning.

Throughout this discussion a few thoughts have recurred in my mind. We started out trying to determine whether or not Joseph could have had written the Book of Mormon from an alternate source other than that which he claimed. The conversation has since moved into subtopics involving whether or not he actually translated anything, whether or not a curtain was hung, what was the process by which Joseph received the information for the BoM, etc...

One thing I have pondered is that were Joseph to have hatched a plan to try and fool the world, he certainly was a miracle worker. To have hidden any kind of manuscript or bible from his many scribes throughout the entire dictation would have taken some real expertise, and some would call it impossible. Why keep switching scribes? Why ever take down the curtain? Why use a hat when something larger would be easier to hide a manuscript in?

We have debated about whether or not Joseph translated or recieved direct revelation. I still contend he translated, but today I will not delve into it. Either way you are admitting he recieved the information from a super-human source. Either it was from the gold plates via God, or straight from God, or straight from the devil. The devil argument is a bad one, because if you have ever read the BoM you know that the devil could never write such terrible things about himself, and wonderful things about God.

We also have not considered the fact that if Joseph was truly a deceiver, he was an extremely talented one. The existence of plates is attested to by multiple witnesses. Where could he have gotten them? How could he have purchased something so expensive? Where would he have learned the expertise to make them?
What evidence is there that he dug a hole in the ground, and made a stone box? How did he know how to make a stone box by himself? How did he make the breastplate, the Urim and Thummim?
How was he able to convince so many people they had seen an angel, or convince so many people that the plates were not fabricated by him? How was he able to convince Sidney Rigdon and others that they had witnessed visions?

Joseph certainly was an extremely smart and cunning fellow to have accomplished all of this. Unfortunately for your case this type of necessary character does not square at all with what we know of him.

The "positive evidence" that has been reported (ie. biblical similarities, spaulding manuscript) is certainly interesting, and should be dealt with. But I do not feel that we can tackle so much at one and give every topic a fair shake. I for one do not have the time at my disposal nor am I prepared to defend every single aspect of your accusations all at once.

These are just a few thoughts I have had.

As for Fortigurn's last post, there is only one thing that I can't resist not commenting on today.

Indeed, as Mormon apologists acknowledge, 'In this sense, the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph's translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another' (source). Other Mormon apologists would disagree, and there remains an unfortunate disagreement on exactly what Smith did. Was it revelation? Some Mormons say yes, some no. Was it translation? Some Mormons say yes, some say no. If these were common lay Mormons, it wouldn't be surprising, but these are highly educated, sophisticated, well read, and prominent Mormon apologists who cannot even agree on a fundamental issue in the entire subject of the Book of Mormon.

I am in shock and a little embarrassed for you. I hope that this was simply something you overlooked in your haste to provide support for your position. The link you provided that stands as your basis for a mormon apologetic confession of revelation vs. translation is not what you have claimed it to be.
This link is to a page that is talking strictly about the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible, and has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. After completing the BoM, and establishing the church, Joseph undertook the enormous task of correcting what he saw as errors in some passages of the bible. During this work he would read the bible, and make corrections based off of pure revelation. There was no translation going on, even though it is called the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible. This is widely acknowledged as being pure revelation in this instance.
So this has nothing to do with the process by which he translated the BoM.
These " highly educated, sophisticated, well read, and prominent Mormon apologists" who you have suggested are submitting that Joseph did not translated but simply received revelation simply are not found anywhere in your link.

I do hope this was a simple misread on your part, and not an intentional attempt at deception. If it was a simple misread, it was a big one.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:We started out trying to determine whether or not Joseph could have had written the Book of Mormon from an alternate source other than that which he claimed.

We are still discussing that. We've never changed topic. I've kept to this one topic rigidly.

The conversation has since moved into subtopics involving whether or not he actually translated anything, whether or not a curtain was hung, what was the process by which Joseph received the information for the BoM, etc...

These, as I have demonstrated several times, are all essential to the topic of whether or not alternative sources were involved. They constitute the negative and positive evidence for both your case and mine. They cannot be avoided.

One thing I have pondered is that were Joseph to have hatched a plan to try and fool the world, he certainly was a miracle worker. To have hidden any kind of manuscript or bible from his many scribes throughout the entire dictation would have taken some real expertise, and some would call it impossible.

No one has suggested that he hid 'any kind of manuscript or bible from his many scribes throughout the entire dictation'. I have stated repeatedly that I am not saying any such thing, and I have demonstrated that no such thing was necessary.

Why keep switching scribes?

Well you could just read the witness reports, they're clear enough.

Why ever take down the curtain?

A bit difficult to leave it up if you want to convince people that this is all your own work.

Why use a hat when something larger would be easier to hide a manuscript in?

No one has suggested that a manuscript was used by Smith while he was dictating. There is certainly the possibility that a scribe could have written down whatever he (the scribe), wanted to. For example, Cowdrey could have been writing down slabs of 'View Of The Hebrews', or mixing it with whatever Smith was saying (which he could have done even without the mansucript with him).

We have debated about whether or not Joseph translated or recieved direct revelation. I still contend he translated, but today I will not delve into it.

The problem is that if you contend he translated, you must prove that he actually read the information on the plates. Clearly the plates were not used, however, for the vast majority of the writing process. This means (at least), that they were not the primary source of the Book of Mormon. We'll return to this later in this post.

Either way you are admitting he recieved the information from a super-human source.

Well I'm not, you are.

Either it was from the gold plates via God, or straight from God, or straight from the devil. The devil argument is a bad one, because if you have ever read the BoM you know that the devil could never write such terrible things about himself, and wonderful things about God.

The problem with this is that it is a false dichotomy. You are refusing to accept the possibility of sources other than these two. I have provided more credible sources.

We also have not considered the fact that if Joseph was truly a deceiver, he was an extremely talented one. The existence of plates is attested to by multiple witnesses. Where could he have gotten them? How could he have purchased something so expensive? Where would he have learned the expertise to make them? What evidence is there that he dug a hole in the ground, and made a stone box? How did he know how to make a stone box by himself? How did he make the breastplate, the Urim and Thummim?

Briefly:

* There is no evidence for the existence of the plates, the stone box, the breastplate, or the 'Urim' and 'Thummim'

* None of the 'Three Witnesses' actually saw the plates with their own eyes

* One of the 'Three Witnesses' (Harris), said that the 'Eight Witnesses' didn't see the plates with their own eyes either

* 'Only three of the eight witnesses made separate statements that they had handled the plates'

* According to an eye witness of this account (not counted among the 'Eight Witnesses'), at least two of the 'Eight Witnesses' did not see the plates with their own eyes, but only saw them wrapped in a linen frock

* One of the 'Eight Witnesses' describes vaguely what he 'saw', but does not describe handling the plates, nor viewing the inscriptions on them

How was he able to convince so many people they had seen an angel, or convince so many people that the plates were not fabricated by him? How was he able to convince Sidney Rigdon and others that they had witnessed visions?

In the same way that Blavatsky was equally convincing, or that Hiram Page managed to convince Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmers that he also had received visions with a seerstone.

Joseph certainly was an extremely smart and cunning fellow to have accomplished all of this. Unfortunately for your case this type of necessary character does not square at all with what we know of him.

As a matter of fact it does:

* A previous history of using a 'seerstone' to look for buried treasure, including disreputable conduct resulting in a court case

* A personal history of growing up in a religious environment of private revelations and visions in the 'Great Awakening' era, including personal experiences in these events

* A previous history (during his experiences with the Methodists), of unorthodox interpretations of Scripture, of claiming that the current religious establishment was corrupt, that he had a mission to restore the priesethood and true religion, and of appointing meetings for people to join him in this endeavour(source)

* A personal habit of reading the Bible at length (for two hours at a time), giving him plenty of familiarity with its language and phraseology (as you have noted yourself)

The "positive evidence" that has been reported (ie. biblical similarities, spaulding manuscript) is certainly interesting, and should be dealt with. But I do not feel that we can tackle so much at one and give every topic a fair shake. I for one do not have the time at my disposal nor am I prepared to defend every single aspect of your accusations all at once.

I certainly understand. Believe me, I understand very well because over the last few weeks I have had to spent countless hours in reading, careful research, evaluation (of both articles critical and defensive of Mormonism), and writing. I would much rather have spent my time on other tasks. I have three books to complete (nothing serious, I'm not putting myself on a pedastal), one of which is a Christian apologetic which requires a vast amount of reading (I've had to work my way through two dozen articles from Bibliotheca Sacra in the last two days alone). So I can fully appreciate how difficult it is to tackle so much at one time, because that's exactly what I've been doing.

I'm fully prepared to go slower, deal with only one issue at a time, or whatever you like, if you want to continue this exchange. I thank you for your patience and courtesy thus far.

More in the next post.

Sargon wrote:I am in shock and a little embarrassed for you. I hope that this was simply something you overlooked in your haste to provide support for your position.

Well there' s need for melodrama, it was a simple mistake (and thank you for taking the time to look up the link and correct me). Actually I'm surprised there haven't been more, given the sheer amount of material I've had to read, and the hours I've had to spend writing.

But while we're on the subject of that link, I'm going to use it anyway. How, and why? Because it's an example of exactly what I'm talking about, the confusion among Mormon apologists as to exactly what constitutes 'translation'. What's important here is that the process of 'translation' used by Smith to 'retranslate' the Bible is identical to the process he allegedly used to 'translate' the Book of Mormon, in that both processes involved no contact with the original text, and instead involved a process of revelation. This, the apologist in that link I quoted points out, is not 'translation' in the true sense of the word.

These " highly educated, sophisticated, well read, and prominent Mormon apologists" who you have suggested are submitting that Joseph did not translated but simply received revelation simply are not found anywhere in your link.

No they weren't, but they were mentioned previously by me, when I linked to Rick's article preivously (this is not the first time I have mentioned the problems Mormon apologists have with the whole 'translation' issue). For your viewing pleasure, I wil now provide plenty of evidence regarding this issue. Note the different views on the 'translation' process among the following quotes from Mormon apologists.

First we have Rick. He says the Book of Mormon 'is of divine origin', but claims Smith didn't receive direct revelation of the words, didn't see any words at all, and instead merely received 'impressons' or 'ideas' which he had to turn into English himself:

Now, I want to make very clear that it is my firm belief that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin. On the other hand, it seems to me that Joseph is deeply involved in the translation process himself, in a number of important ways. One of them is, I believe, that Joseph has to make choices as to the particular words that are used in the English translation. I think that that is probably the case because, as you probably recall, in the 1837 second edition of the Book of Mormon, numerous changes are made in the text of the Book of Mormon in English. And they are made by Joseph or under his direction. Now, if Joseph had imagined that everything in the Book of Mormon was directly as God had revealed it to him with no changes possible, because, after all, this is utterly and absolutely the word of God, then I am not certain that he would have been willing to enter in any changes whatsoever.

[...]

These verses, I think, suggest that effort was required on the part of the translator; real genuine effort. To search for, to find the appropriate expression, something that would not have been the case if it is simply directly revealed from God to the mind and the pen of the translator.

There is some further evidence, I think, for the idea that I am proposing here, that there is real effort involved on Joseph's part, that he is not simply, now, writing what is given into his mind directly, but is being required to work out ideas that are given to him into an English that is felicitous and acceptable in expressing those notions from the original text.

[...]

Well, David Whitmer says very much the same thing about this same event. "When, in translating, he first came to where Jerusalem was spoken of as a walled city, he stopped until they got a Bible and showed him where the fact was recorded, Smith not believing that it was a walled city."

There's a reason why I threw that last paragraph in. We might discuss it later.

Next we have Barney, who makes it clear that he disagrees with Skousen's position (we'll read Skousen in a moment), rejecting a 'tight control model of the ranslation', similar to Rick. However, unlike both Rick and Skousen, Barney is unwilling to commit himself to any particular explanation of the 'translation' process, in doubt as to what actually took place (this, in spite of all the eye witness accounts):

I suspect that I was invited to participate in reviewing and commenting on the first volume of the commentary phase of Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon critical text project in part because I am in print as having some different views regarding Book of Mormon translation theory than Skousen does. Skousen is on record as preferring what he calls a "tight control" model of the translation, namely, that the English text of the Book of Mormon is a rather literal translation that closely follows its original language exemplar written on the gold plates. In contrast, I prefer what I call "eclecticism," which means that I do not approach the text with a single translation model in mind but remain open as to whether a given passage reflects tighter or looser control, or even midrashic embellishment, on the part of Joseph Smith as the modern translator.

Now we have Skousen, who seems to be 'Old Skool'. He insists that Smith received a direct revelation of the English text, already translated from the plates, which he saw 'word for word and letter for letter', leaving no room for error or for Smith's own word choice:

Evidence from the original manuscript supports the traditional belief that Joseph Smith received a revealed text by means of the interpreters. This idea of a controlled text originates with statements made by witnesses of the translation.

[...]

All of this evidence (from the witnesse's statements, the original manuscript, the printer's manuscript, and from the text itself) is thus consistent with the hypothesis that Joseph Smith could actually see (whether in the interpreters themselves or in his mind's eye) the translated English text—word for word and letter for letter—and that he read off this revealed text to his scribe.

Skousen again (note how he says that the witness testimony has tradtionally 'been ignored', because it contradicts the standard Mormon belief that Smith actually viewed the plates and translated the text into English through a 'gift of translation'):

Traditionally, these witnesses have been ignored, largely because their testimonies conflict with our perceptions of how Joseph Smith translated. Although some witnesses gave statements regarding what Joseph Smith actually saw through the interpreters, these statements represent either hearsay or conjecture. As witnesses, they can only testify concerning what they actually saw going on: both scribe and translator working in open view, without other materials and for long periods of time; Joseph Smith beginning where he left off without being prompted; the scribe reading back to Joseph what had been written down; and Joseph spelling out Book of Mormon names to the scribe.

This is certainly the 'Old Skool' view, as we can see from the following account from a State Conference in 1881:

"Saturday Feb. 25, 1881, I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, which was as follows as near as I can recollect the substance of his description.

Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and every letter was given to him by the gift and power of God.

So it is the work of God and not of Joseph Smith, and it was done in this way ... . The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear.

And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual."

Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, page 168 of typed copy at Utah State Historical Society

But as early as BH Roberts (member of the First Council of the Seventy, lived from 1857-1933), it was noted by Mormon apologists themselves the 'old theory' of the 'translation' process (in other words accepting the witness accounts as they stand), runs into serious problems (problems I have already mentioned), because it is nothing short of revelation (not translation):

"The fact that such errors in grammar and diction as occur in the translation are just such errors as might reasonably be looked for in the work of one unlearned in the English language.

"From this data the following argument proceeds: It is impossible that the alleged translation, whether by divine or human media, could be a word-for-word bringing over from the Nephite language into the English; and if the translation is not such a word-for-word bringing over affair, then it cannot be claimed that the Nephite original is responsible for verbal inaccuracies and grammatical errors.

If the Book of Mormon is a real translation instead of a word-for-word bringing over from one language into another, and it is insisted that the divine instrument, Urim and Thummim, did all, and the prophet nothing - at least nothing more than to read off the translation made by Urim and Thummim - then the divine instrument is responsible for such errors in grammar and diction as did occur. But this is to assign responsibility for errors in language to a divine instrumentality, which amounts to assigning such error to God. But that is unthinkable, not to say blasphemous. Also, if it be contended that the language of the Book of Mormon, word for word, and letter for letter, was given to the prophet by direct inspiration of God, acting upon his mind, then again God is made responsible for the language errors in the Book of Mormon - a thing unthinkable.

"Rather than ascribe these errors to Deity, either through direct or indirect means, men will reject the claims of the Book of Mormon; and, since the verbal errors in the Book of Mormon are such as one ignorant of the English language would make, the temptation is strong, in the minds of those not yet converted to its truth, to assign to the Book of Mormon an altogether human origin... .

"Are these flagrant errors in grammar chargeable to the Lord? To say so is to invite ridicule. The thoughts, the doctrines, are well enough; but the awkward, ungrammatical expression of the thoughts is, doubtless, the result of the translator's imperfect knowledge of the English language ... that old theory cannot be successfully maintained; that is, the Urim and Thummim did the translating, the Prophet, nothing beyond repeating what he saw reflected in that instrument; that God directly or indirectly is responsible for the verbal and grammatical errors of translation. To advance such a theory before intelligent and educated people is to unnecessarily invite ridicule, and make of those who advocate it candidates for contempt ...

"It is no use resisting the matter, the old theory must be abandoned. It could only come into existence and remain so long and now be clung to by some so tenaciously because our fathers and our people in the past and now were and are uncritical."

Defense of the Faith, by B. H. Roberts, Deseret News, 1907-1912, pages 278, 279, 295, 306, 307 and 308

In contrast to this, we find yet another Mormon apologist saying that Smith read and dictated exactly what was shown to him, but later (under inspiration), corrected errors in the plates themselves:

"In Mr. Budvarson's photo reproduction (p. 21) of page 200 of the First Edition he takes pains to underline 'king Benjamin' and points out that in later editions it was changed to read 'king Mosiah.' (Cf. Mos. 21:28) Budvarson is correct in this; the prophet Joseph Smith did change the reading in the Second (1837) Edition despite the fact that the original manuscript reads 'king Benjamin,' if the manuscript made by Oliver Cowdery and now in possession of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is any criterion. (Cf. 'Preface,' page viii of current editions of their Book of Mormon.)

The change raises an interesting question. Who was responsible for the reading, 'king Benjamin,' in the first place? Was it an inadvertent slip of the tongue on the part of Joseph Smith as he dictated his translation to Oliver Cowdery, or did he translate correctly enough an original error on the part of Mormon, the abridger of the Book of Mormon? The last of these suggestions is probably the correct one, for the fact remains that the reading 'king Benjamin' is an out-and-out error, because the king had been dead for some time, and his son Mosiah was his successor with a 'gift from God.' (See Mos. 6:4-5; 8:13) What we have here, Mr. Budvarson, is an example of another human error that Joseph Smith was glad to correct."

Fortigurn,
I am impressed by your research. Often I am grateful for anti-mormons because they endure such painstakingly careful research so they might prove us wrong, and in the process provide us with an excellent and well organized presentation of information.
I do however disagree with how you misrepresented some of the articles, highlighting the exact thing for which they were arguing against, making appear that it was what they were arguing for. But that might have been human error.

I am a little confused as to why you are so bent on demonstrating that among LDS apologists there is a degree of friendly disagreement as to how exactly the Book of Mormon was translated. I thought we had already established that. Whether they contend that Joseph did the actual translating, or that he was given the translation word for word, all of them agree that the final product was a translation of the Book of Mormon.
Whether or not Joseph did the actual translation is an interesting discussion, but one that does not wholly apply to our conversation. We are trying to determine if Joseph could have used any other resources than those that every eye witness described as being present.

No one has suggested that he hid 'any kind of manuscript or bible from his many scribes throughout the entire dictation'. I have stated repeatedly that I am not saying any such thing, and I have demonstrated that no such thing was necessary.

You continue to argue that a bible or a manuscript need not be present for him to have used it, but I fail understand how that is possible unless you contend that he memorized it.

We are still discussing that. We've never changed topic. I've kept to this one topic rigidly.

I know, and I applaud you. I was simply trying to recap the discussion so far, not suggest we had strayed from it. Subtopics are certainly ok as long as we finish one before going to the next.

The problem is that if you contend he translated, you must prove that he actually read the information on the plates. Clearly the plates were not used, however, for the vast majority of the writing process. This means (at least), that they were not the primary source of the Book of Mormon. We'll return to this later in this post.

This I feel is your biggest mistake. You believe that because the plates weren't present they could not have been the primary source for the text of the Book of Mormon. On what basis do you found this argument? Don't you see the contradiction in your argument? You argue that the bible did not have to be present in order for him to take from it, yet you argue at the same time that the plates needed to be present for him to take from them. Unless I am very mistaken (which happens more than it should) this is what I understand you to be argueing.

I dont have much time today to comment on the rest of what you wrote. I am just trying to figure out how you claim Joseph could have taken from alternative sources without having them present with him during dictation. The positive evidence you sight for this theory count for nothing unless it can be proven that he could have used alternate sources at all. Their existence is not nearly enough to show that he had access to them, and in no account is their any mention of them being present.
I know you have tried to argue for this, but you still are not making sense to me. You argue that a curtain was in the way, so he could have been hiding them. But we know that the curtain was not in the way during the large majority of translation. You argue that the scribes may have inserted it on their own, but there is no evidence for this, only desperate speculation.
Back to the books.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:Fortigurn,
I am impressed by your research. Often I am grateful for anti-mormons because they endure such painstakingly careful research so they might prove us wrong, and in the process provide us with an excellent and well organized presentation of information.

Thank you, I'm glad of that.

I do however disagree with how you misrepresented some of the articles, highlighting the exact thing for which they were arguing against, making appear that it was what they were arguing for. But that might have been human error.

Please feel free to highlight my errors. I'm more than happy to be corrected, as you have seen. I am not aware that I have misrepresented any of the articles.

I am a little confused as to why you are so bent on demonstrating that among LDS apologists there is a degree of friendly disagreement as to how exactly the Book of Mormon was translated. I thought we had already established that. Whether they contend that Joseph did the actual translating, or that he was given the translation word for word, all of them agree that the final product was a translation of the Book of Mormon.

Whether or not Joseph did the actual translation is an interesting discussion, but one that does not wholly apply to our conversation. We are trying to determine if Joseph could have used any other resources than those that every eye witness described as being present.

Yes, we are indeed trying to determine if Smith could have used any resources other than those which the eye witnesses described as present. But in order to establish your case, you need to prove that he was in fact using the resources which were present, namely the plates.

This is the whole reason for addressing this 'translation' issue. All but one of the witnesses I have read insist that the plates were not used in the writing of the Book of Mormon. Not only that, but none of them - not even one - describes a process of 'translation'.

The closest to a translation account is Cowdery's (because he has Smith looking directly at the characters on the plates), but even then no translation is undertaken by Smith, instead the 'Urim' and 'Thumminm', or 'Revealers' actually reveal to him English words. That is not Smith translating the Book of Mormon, that is Smith reading English which has been revealed to him by a paire of magic spectacles.

As I have shown using articles from Mormon apologists, this is not an issue I have made up out of nothing, but an issue which is absolutely critical to the question of where the material in the Book of Mormon came from, and critical to the integrity of the text.

Let me break it down for you again:

* If Smith was not in fact using the plates while reading the Book of Mormon (and all but one of the witnesses say he was not using the plates), then the information cannot be proved to have come from the plates (this then invites us to look for other sources)

* If Smith was not using the plates while reading the Book of Mormon, then he was not actually translating the information on the Book of Mormon (this is using the definition of 'translation' agreed to by you and I, and a number of Mormon apologists), which again means that the information cannot be proved to have come from the plates (this then invites us to look for other sources)

* If Smith did translate the Book of Mormon then there would have to be evidence that he actually undertook a translation process, but only one of the witness accounts suggests that he even looked at the plates while writing the Book of Mormon, and all of them describe indisputably a process of revelation, not interpretation (in every single witness account, Smith read only English - he did not read the original language and then translate it into English)

* If the eye witness accounts are correct, and Smith read the English 'word for word' as it appeared, then any errors can only be ascribed to Smith not reading properly or the scribe not recording properly (both ruled out by the eye witness accounts, which say that errors of reading or writing were not possible, being corrected immediately), errors in the English revealed to Smith (not possible if God was the author of the revelation, as Smith claimed), or errors in the original text of the plates (an argument one Mormon apologist makes, though this is unsupportable because Smith did not receive his information from the plates, but by revelation from God, and God would surely not make an error in revelaing in English to Smith what the text said)

There is, therefore, no evidence whatever that the material in the Book of Mormon came from the plates, and positive evidence that it came by revelation instead (see the eye witness accounts). Because of this, there is no evidence for a genuine process of translation (see the eye witness accounts, and Mormon apologists I have already quoted). Until there is evidence that the material in the Book of Mormon actually came from the plates, it is not possible to suport the claim that it did. Until that happens, it is not only reasonable but necessary to examine the possibility of alternative sources.

You continue to argue that a bible or a manuscript need not be present for him to have used it, but I fail understand how that is possible unless you contend that he memorized it.

I have already explained this. I don't need to memorize the entire Bible in order to make up a 'Biblical sounding' story which would be full of KJV English and expressions. I've read enough of the Bible to do that, even though I certainly haven't read all I wrote. I could also throw in bits and pieces of history, archaeology, science, and mathematics which I've picked up from different sources, as well as Greek and Roman myths I can remember, and make up a wonderful story without having a book with me at all times, or having to memorize a Bible or manuscript.

As I have pointed out, Smith had (from his personal experiences and environment), plenty of material for the Book of Mormon without having to memorize completely the Bible or any other manuscript (and that's not even counting the many ways he could have refreshed his memory, such as reading books prior to the dictation process). Let's hear from BH Roberts (already quoted in my last post):

'Moreover, on subjects widely discussed,...there is built up in course of years, a community knowledge of such subjects, usually referred to as 'matters of common knowledge'...Such 'common' knowledge existed throughout New England and New York...the prevailing ideas respecting the American Indians throughout the regions named, were favorable to the notion that they were of Hebrew origin,...

And with the existence of such a body of knowledge, or that which was accepted as 'knowledge', and a person of vivid and constructive imaginative power in contact with it, there is little room for doubt but that it might be possible for Joseph Smith to construct 'a theory of origin for his Book of Mormon, in harmony with these prevailing notions; and more especially since this common knowledge' is set forth in almost hand-book form in the little work of Ethan Smith,...

It will appear in what is to follow that such 'common knowledge' did exist in New England; that Joseph Smith was in contact with it; that one book, at least, with which he was most likely acquainted, could well have furnished structural outlines for the Book of Mormon; and that Joseph Smith was possessed of such creative imaginative powers as would make it quite within the lines of possibility that the Book of Mormon could have been produced in that way.'

BH Roberts, 'A Book of Mormon Study', Part I, Chapter 1

'...was Joseph Smith possessed of a sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to produce such a work as the Book of Mormon from such materials as have been indicated in the preceding chapters--from such common knowledge as was extant in the communities where he lived in his boyhood and young manhood; from the Bible, and more especially from the 'View of the Hebrews', by Ethan Smith? That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question...'

'A superabundance of evidence of Joseph Smith's power of imagination exists outside of the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon be regarded as of merely human origin, then, of course, to those so regarding it, the rest of Joseph Smith's work falls to the same plane...'

'In the light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet, an imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are to be found in the 'common knowledge' of accepted American Antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith's 'View of the Hebrews', would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is.'

BH Roberts, 'A Book of Mormon Study', Part I, Chapter 4

Complete article, with many more quotes from BH Roberts on the same subject, here.

This I feel is your biggest mistake. You believe that because the plates weren't present they could not have been the primary source for the text of the Book of Mormon. On what basis do you found this argument?

I have explained this. I found this argument on the basis that every eye witness account says that the text read by Smith was revealed to him miraculously. He never read what was on the plates. He didn't read once read the characters on the plates. Not once. Whether he used the seerstone or the 'Urim' and 'Thummim', all he ever read was English which was revealed to him miraculously (either in the seerstone or in the 'Urim' and 'Thummim'). What was revealed to him was English. We are told that the plates were not written in English. What he read, therefore, was miraculously revealed to him without him reading the plates, and was most certainly not on the plates.

Don't you see the contradiction in your argument? You argue that the bible did not have to be present in order for him to take from it, yet you argue at the same time that the plates needed to be present for him to take from them. Unless I am very mistaken (which happens more than it should) this is what I understand you to be argueing.

That's very close to what I'm arguing. It would help if you replaced 'take from them' with 'translate them', and replaced 'the plates needed to be present for him to take from them' with 'the plates needed to be present for him to translate from them'.

Let me try to put it a little more clearly. First up, the Book of Mormon issue:

* Smith dictated English text, none of which was written on the plates (they were written in another language), so the English text clearly was not taken from the plates (which, if you don't acknowledge here, you will have to acknowledge in the next point)

* The witnesses claim that the English text was revealed to him miraculously (and all but one of the witnesses say that he wasn't even looking at the plates while dictating), confirming again that the plates were not the source of the English text (the source of the English text was direct revelation)

* In order for him to have translated the text on the plates, he would have had to actually read the characters on the plates and then rendered them into English, but every single eye witness says that during the miraculous process of writing, he did not read the characters even once, he only ever read English text which was revealed to him

* What happened therefore was that Smith dictated, in English, the English text which was revealed to him miraculously (this is called revelation and dictation, not translation - Smith never actually performed the process of translation)

* In addition to this, the eye witnesses could not read the text on the plates, nor confirm that the English dictated by Smith was a translation of the text on the plates, nor did they ever see or describe a process of translation (they saw and described a process of dictation, Smith reading from an alleged English text which they could not see)

There is, therefore, no evidence whatever that the material in the Book of Mormon was taken from the plates, still less 'translated' from them. The best we can say for the Mormon case (accepting the eye witness testimony), is that the material in the Book of Mormon was Divinely revealed to Smith in the form of English text, and that the presence or reading of the plates were entirely unnecessary for this process to take place.

Now we turn to the issue of the Bible:

* The Bible was already in English

* We know that Smith was already familiar with the Bible, having read it many times before (at length), and having given sermons on it while with the Methodists

* Smith therefore had the necessary background Biblical knowledge to draw on in order to incorporate Biblical text and concepts into the writing of the Book of Mormon, without requiring the book in front of him as he dictated (acknowledged in comments from BH Roberts above)

* There is no doubt that the Book of Mormon includes material which is also in the KJV Bible (complete with translation errors and words inserted during the translation process to make the English text readable)

That is the difference. I hope I've made this more clear now.

I dont have much time today to comment on the rest of what you wrote. I am just trying to figure out how you claim Joseph could have taken from alternative sources without having them present with him during dictation.

Because I believe he had a brain with a functioning memory. I am not claiming that he wrote them out complete, and verbatim. I believe that there is textual evidence for the inclusion of partially rememberd material from other sources.

The positive evidence you sight for this theory count for nothing unless it can be proven that he could have used alternate sources at all.

I have shown this by:

* Providing links demonstrating which relevant sources were available to him (I can provide these again if necessary)

* Explaining that he could simply have used his own memory (the same memory all of us have), to generate material using these sources (which would not require an unusual memory)

* Explaining that he could have refreshed his memory by recourse to written sources at times other than the writing sessions, and could have done so without being seen (though even if he had been seen, it would hardly have been mentioned by witnesses attempting to create the impression that no such material was used)

* Quoting from an eye witness account in which one of these sources (the Bible), was indisputably used to verify material which was subsequently included in the Book of Mormon (material allegedly provided by revelation), showing that this source was certainly available to him, and could have been used (I will return to this incident later)

In addition, I have explained that material could have been included by the scribes themselves. There is much evidence of an editing process taking place during the writing by the scribes. What is not clear is whether this editing process was under the direction of Smith or the scribes (the eye witness accounts of the scribes are unfortunately not evidence, since they are disqualified from auto-authenticating, not being independent witnesses).

Their existence is not nearly enough to show that he had access to them, and in no account is their any mention of them being present.

I have provided a number of links showing how he had access to a range of relevant sources, and I have explained why there is no necessity for them to have been present. Certainly, if they had been present and used as sources, the eye witnesses would hardly have told us this if they wanted us to believe that Smith was writing under inspiration.

But while we're on that subject, let me return to a quote from my last post which I mentioned I might raise again:

Well, David Whitmer says very much the same thing about this same event. "When, in translating, he first came to where Jerusalem was spoken of as a walled city, he stopped until they got a Bible and showed him where the fact was recorded, Smith not believing that it was a walled city."

Source. Note that he didn't think that he had misread the English text revealed to him, or misunderstood what was meant, he actually didn't believe what the Divinely revealed text clearly said, and 'stoped until they got a Bible and showed him where the fact was revealed'.

Now even a sympathetic reading of this passage wuld have to acknowledge that Smith actually used the Bible to check if this information provided by Divine revelation was in fact accurate. I'll leave you to imagine what an unsympathetic reading would make of it.

I know you have tried to argue for this, but you still are not making sense to me. You argue that a curtain was in the way, so he could have been hiding them. But we know that the curtain was not in the way during the large majority of translation.

We've already dealt with the curtain issue, it was only relevant for the 116 pages and I am not using it in my case for the rest of the material.

You argue that the scribes may have inserted it on their own, but there is no evidence for this, only desperate speculation.

It is not 'desparate speculation'. It is a reasonable hypothesis given that we find in the Book of Mormon:

* Material which is also in the KJV Bible (complete with translation errors and words inserted during the translation process to make the English text readable)

* Material found in 'Vision Of The Hebrews', the Spaulding Manuscript, and other written sources (and evidence that these were available to Smith and/or his scribes)

* Material consisting of conventional and local 19th century English thoughts and views (ethnic, political, religious, and social)

The presence of this material must be explained in some way. I am actually required to explain it myself, and it is therefore encumbent on me to present hypotheses to account for it. Now my individual hypotheses may not be accurate. Certainly I cannot insist that they are facts without presenting incontrovertible evidence that they are facts. Until that time they remain hypothetical, and I must refer to them as such. However, they cannot be conclusively falsified unless it can be proved that they are impossible. Until that time they remain reasonable explanations of the data. The question is whether they are more credible than your explanations. That matter will be settled by the amount of evidence we can provide for our respective positions.

You are in the same position. Any case you make for the Book of Mormon must also respond effectively to this positive evidence for my case. Like me, you cannot insist that your claims are factual without presenting incontrovertible evidence that they are facts.

I am able to falsify your claims in the same way that you are able to falsify mine. For example, to date it is has been impossible for you to prove that the material in the Book of Mormon came from the plates. You have not even been able to provide evidence of a translation process, and until you are then the proposal that the plates were translated by Smith remains not merely unsupported due to a lack of evidence for a translation process, but actually falsified by the existence of positive eye witness evidence that the writing process did not involve translation, but revelation.

Fortigurn,
Yet another extremely long post. I am severely restricted in my time now that school has started back up. I would be glad to continue the discussion, and rebut every single incorrect claim you have put forth. But I will not be able to dedicate very much time to this any longer, between calculus and physics homework.
Maybe this weekend I will find a couple hours to sort through the misinterpretations I believe you have made.
If you are interested in a faster paced debate, I encourage you to visit http://www.mormonapologetics.org
There you will find people with more time on their hands and also with much more expertise in this area than I have. I think you will enjoy it greatly. I would be interested in seeing how you are responded to there.

Thank you for the perseverance, and I hope to report back soon with my response.

Sargon

Thanks Sargon, please take your time. I wouldn't mind at all if you at least listed the misinterpretations I've given (you don't have to go into details, just say what I did wrong), so that I can recheck my facts and I know what to ask on that other site.

I know it was a long post, but actually there's nothing there I haven't said already. I've just spelled it out in more depth. I haven't raised any new arguments at all, and in fact neither did you - your last post simply repeated the same objections you raised earlier (and I explained again why your objections cannot stand, using the same replies I gave earlier).

In the last few posts I've simply been describing in detail the same arguments I have been using all along (and providing a few more links and direct quotes).

My case, and my major arguments, have remained constant for the last three pages, and can be expressed in a couple of paragraphs.

Fortigurn,

It is not in this post that I will attempt to rebutt your arguments. That will come at a later date. The task of determining what exactly happened and trying to include every account(because we have covered only a small number)is a daunting and time consuming one. There have been countless articles and books written on the subject, by mormon and non-mormon authors.

For now it will suffice for me to tell you that I do not believe that your conclusions are accurate reflections of what the eye witness accounts describe. There are a couple of reasons for this:

1) We obviously view them from different initial perspectives, which significantly affects our respective conclusions of what is said.

2) I believe you have missed some very important details in the accounts, possibly for not having a deep knowledge of LDS vocabulary.

3) I do not believe we have given emphasis to the proper accounts, and we have not considered the context of who, when, where, and under what circumstances those accounts were given.

4) I believe that your conclusions on the translation or lack thereof of the gold plates is firstly irrelevant to the discussion, and secondly lacking in a solid foundation.

These are just some thoughts. I hope to soon get around to a more detailed rebuttal, and that we can discuss at a slower, and more thorough pace.

I thank you for you patience, and your civility.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:For now it will suffice for me to tell you that I do not believe that your conclusions are accurate reflections of what the eye witness accounts describe. There are a couple of reasons for this:

1) We obviously view them from different initial perspectives, which significantly affects our respective conclusions of what is said.

I don't think that's the problem, because as I have pointed out a number of Mormon apologists have drawn the same conclusions as I have, when reading the eye witenss accounts.

2) I believe you have missed some very important details in the accounts, possibly for not having a deep knowledge of LDS vocabulary.

I would be interested in seeing the evidence for this. I doubt that this is the case, since a number of Mormon apologists have drawn the same conclusions as I have, when reading the eye witness accounts.

3) I do not believe we have given emphasis to the proper accounts, and we have not considered the context of who, when, where, and under what circumstances those accounts were given.

Again, I can't help returning to the fact that a number of Mormon apologists have drawn the same conclusions as I have, when reading the eye witness accounts.

I have in fact been very accommodating of the eye witness accounts. I've trod softly on a number of key issues identified as problematic even by Mormon apologists:

* The confusion over whether only the 'interpreters' were used, or only the 'seerstone', or both

* The confusion over whether or not the 'seerstone' was also referred to as 'the interpreters

* The fact that even Mormon apologists disagree as to which of the eye witness accounts are accurate

* The differing views among Mormon apologists as to exactly how the translation process took place (whether true translation, or revelation)

* The differing views among Mormon apologists as to whether the words in the 'translation' were chosen by Smith, or God

The fact is that the eye witness accounts do not all agree. Even if I take them as referring to different incidents of 'translation', the fact is that one of them claims that all of the Book of Mormon ('save a few pages'), was dictated to one man (Cowdery), having been 'translated' using the 'interpreters'. This cannot be made to agree with all the other accounts.

4) I believe that your conclusions on the translation or lack thereof of the gold plates is firstly irrelevant to the discussion, and secondly lacking in a solid foundation.

I don't believe it's irrelevant to the discussion, because it is actually the center of the issue of whether or not the information in the Book of Mormon was taken from the plates or not. Secondly, I don't believe it's lacking in a solid foundation, because it's based firmly on the eye witness testimonies of Mormons themselves.

These are just some thoughts. I hope to soon get around to a more detailed rebuttal, and that we can discuss at a slower, and more thorough pace.

Feel free to post them at that other forum you mentioned. I've been looking over it for the last three days, and it seems there are a lot of people there who have the time to give these issues detailed attention.

I thank you for you patience, and your civility.

You're very welcome, I thank you likewise for the same.

...a number of Mormon apologists have drawn the same conclusions as I have...

...since a number of Mormon apologists have drawn the same conclusions as I have...

Again, I can't help returning to the fact that a number of Mormon apologists have drawn the same conclusions as I have, when reading the eye witness accounts.

...even Mormon apologists disagree ...

The differing views among Mormon apologists...

The differing views among Mormon apologists...

This seems to be your first defense against my objections. You attempt to create a picture of a divided and confused group of apologists who are in opposition to each other. But this simply is not the case.
What you are not understanding is that even though there are Mormon apologists who disagree on small details, they are united in agreement as to the most important matters.

They all believe that the Book of Mormon is a translation of what was on the gold plates. They may disagree as to how it was accomplished, but that is not quite as important as the fact that it was accomplished.

The all agree that the Book of Mormon is not a creation of Joseph Smiths mind, and was not influenced by View of the Hebrews, the Spaulding Manuscript, or any other contemporary works.

They all agree that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and not a charlatan.

Your attempt at emphasizing any disagreements among LDS apologists is not necessary, and is irrelevant to the discussion.

We can debate for weeks about what the process of translation was, and the fact of the matter is, we may never be able to come to a solid conclusion. What we ought to be discussing, is if it is possible that even were the plates not present for parts of the translation, does this mean that the information did not come from the plates. To you it is a clear no, they could not have come from them. To me it is a clear yes, it easily was done.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:This seems to be your first defense against my objections. You attempt to create a picture of a divided and confused group of apologists who are in opposition to each other. But this simply is not the case.

What you are not understanding is that even though there are Mormon apologists who disagree on small details, they are united in agreement as to the most important matters.

They all believe that the Book of Mormon is a translation of what was on the gold plates. They may disagree as to how it was accomplished, but that is not quite as important as the fact that it was accomplished.

The all agree that the Book of Mormon is not a creation of Joseph Smiths mind, and was not influenced by View of the Hebrews, the Spaulding Manuscript, or any other contemporary works.

They all agree that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and not a charlatan.

Your attempt at emphasizing any disagreements among LDS apologists is not necessary, and is irrelevant to the discussion.

It seems you misunderstand the reason why I am using these apologists. I have never claimed that the story of the 'translation' is invalid because these apologists disagree. I have never attempted to falsify the Book of Mormon simply on the basis that these apologists have disagreements over certain details of the 'translation' process.

I have used them to show:

* That my understanding of what constitutes a process of translation is held even among Mormon apologists (as well as by you)

* That my view that the eye witness accounts do not all agree is held even among Mormon apologists

* That my view that certain of the eye witness accounts simply cannot be true is held even among Mormon apologists

* That my view that the writing of the Book of Mormon was at best a matter of revelation and not translation from the plates is held even among Mormon apologists

This confirms to me:

* That I am not misreading the eye witness accounts

* That my conclusions are not simply the product of my personal biases

* That I am not simply being selective in my reading of the eye witness accounts

We can debate for weeks about what the process of translation was, and the fact of the matter is, we may never be able to come to a solid conclusion. What we ought to be discussing, is if it is possible that even were the plates not present for parts of the translation, does this mean that the information did not come from the plates. To you it is a clear no, they could not have come from them. To me it is a clear yes, it easily was done.

As I have pointed out, you need to find a definition of 'translation' which actually agrees with your position. You also need to deal with the fact that as early as the 1930s BH Roberts was making the point that the Book of Mormon could not have been said to have been 'translated' in the true sense of the word, that the 'old theory' of how it was 'translated' was completely unsustainable, and that certain present day Mormon apologists make the same argument.

You need to provide actual evidence that what was on the plates is the material which found its way into the Book of Mormon. To date you haven't provided any evidence of this. The majority of the eye witness accounts state clearly that the plates weren't even used as the source of the Book of Mormon.

I suggest it is going to be difficult for you to assert a process of translation in which the plates were absent. If the plates were not present during any one part of the process of writing the Book of Mormon, then it becomes clear that the plates were unnecessary to the entire process. If the plates were unnecessary to the entire process of writing the Book of Mormon, then their relevance to the writing of the Book of Mormon is rendered null.

As I have shown, this is recognised even among Mormon apologists. This is why we must start here. If you're going to rely on the eye witness testimony, then you're going to have to either try and harmonise the accounts, or explain which of them are faulty. Traditionally, Mormon apologists have attempted both. Present day Mormon apologists seem to find the latter a good deal easier than the former.